NETWORK STRUCTURE MODERATES INTERGROUP DIFFERENTIATION OF STEREOTYPED RUMORS

被引:22
作者
DiFonzo, Nicholas [1 ]
Suls, Jerry [2 ]
Beckstead, Jason W. [3 ]
Bourgeois, Martin J. [4 ]
Homan, Christopher M. [1 ]
Brougher, Samuel [1 ]
Younge, Andrew J. [1 ]
Terpstra-Schwab, Nicholas [5 ]
机构
[1] Rochester Inst Technol, Rochester, NY 14623 USA
[2] NCI, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[3] Univ S Florida, Tampa, FL 33620 USA
[4] Florida Gulf Coast Univ, Ft Myers, FL USA
[5] Univ Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
DYNAMIC SOCIAL IMPACT; GROUP POLARIZATION; MEDIATED COMMUNICATION; SELF-ORGANIZATION; ELECTRONIC GROUPS; CONSISTENCY BIAS; DECISION-MAKING; ATTITUDES; INFORMATION; PSYCHOLOGY;
D O I
10.1521/soco.2014.32.5.409
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The role of network structure in intergroup differentiation-the bipolarization of stereotypes that are defensive (ingroup-positive/outgroup-negative) and non-defensive (outgroup-positive/ingroup-negative)-was investigated using a Dynamic Social Impact Theory (DSIT) framework. Three computermediated laboratory social network experiments were pooled to test the interaction of network clustering (cliquish structure) and segregation (personal network homogeneity) on intergroup differentiation. Democrats and Republicans during the five months preceding the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, deaf and hearing persons, and women and men participated. Twenty-six 16-person groups (e.g., 8 Democrats, 8 Republicans) serially discussed nine controversial stereotyped rumors in lattice (unclustered) or "family" (clustered) network structures. Support was found for an Ingroup Echo Chamber Effect: segregation led to intergroup differentiation (stronger defensive belief, weaker non-defensive belief) in clustered, but not unclustered, structures. At the individual level, network clustering amplified ingroup neighbor social influence, leading participants to think more positively of their ingroup and more negatively of their outgroup.
引用
收藏
页码:409 / 448
页数:40
相关论文
共 121 条
[91]   GROUP POLARIZATION PHENOMENON [J].
MYERS, DG ;
LAMM, H .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1976, 83 (04) :602-627
[92]  
NG SH, 1989, NEW ZEAL J PSYCHOL, V18, P1
[93]   FROM PRIVATE ATTITUDE TO PUBLIC-OPINION - A DYNAMIC THEORY OF SOCIAL IMPACT [J].
NOWAK, A ;
SZAMREJ, J ;
LATANE, B .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1990, 97 (03) :362-376
[94]  
Pettigrew T., 2000, REDUCING PREJUDICE D, P93
[95]   How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators [J].
Pettigrew, Thomas F. ;
Tropp, Linda R. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2008, 38 (06) :922-934
[96]   A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory [J].
Pettigrew, Thomas F. ;
Tropp, Linda R. .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 90 (05) :751-783
[97]  
Petty R.E., 1986, COMMUN PERSUATION
[98]   Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization [J].
Postmes, T ;
Spears, R ;
Lea, M .
GROUP DYNAMICS-THEORY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2002, 6 (01) :3-16
[99]  
Richardson D.S., 2001, Cross-cultural approaches to research on aggression and reconciliation, P9
[100]   Prejudice and stereotyping in everyday communication [J].
Ruscher, JB .
ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, VOL 30, 1998, 30 :241-307